Persons in charge of closed place to allow search
Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with persons in charge of closed place to allow search. Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonabl The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.
(2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub-section (2) of section 44.
(3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency.
(4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.
(6) The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.
(7) When any person is searched under sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.
(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 222 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023).
Section 103, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 100 Persons in charge of closed place to allow search Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sarju @ Ramu vs State of U. P
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 100, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases under the NDPS Act, particularly where serious allegations are made against police officials, the procedural safeguards contained in the Act, especially Section 50 requiring that a person to be searched must be informed of their right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, must be scrupulously complied with. Failure to inform the person of this right renders the recovery of contraband suspect and vitiates the conviction where the conviction is based solely on possession of the illicit article recovered during the illegal search. Evidence obtained through violation of Section 50 safeguards cannot be used as evidence of unlawful possession to sustain a conviction. The investigating agency must follow the procedure envisaged by the statute scrupulously, and failure to do so must be viewed seriously by higher authorities. An accused is entitled to a fair trial, and a conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to the concept of justice.
On this section: Provisions regarding search procedures applicable to NDPS Act cases
-
Dharampal Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 100, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In narcotic drug possession cases under Section 18 NDPS Act, once the prosecution establishes possession of the illicit article (by proving recovery from a vehicle the accused was driving or occupying), the burden shifts to the accused to prove such possession was not conscious. In the case of private vehicles (not public transport), the mere fact of driving and occupying the vehicle from which narcotic drugs are recovered, combined with the statutory presumptions under Sections 54 and 35 NDPS Act, establishes conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt. The procedural requirement of Section 50 NDPS Act applies only to personal body searches and not to vehicle searches. The absence of questions explicitly framing the conclusion about conscious possession in Section 313 CrPC examination is not fatal if the circumstances leading to such conclusion were put to the accused and they failed to provide satisfactory explanation.
On this section: Provisions regarding search and seizure. Court noted that rigours of Section 100 do not mandate the presence of independent witnesses to the extent that absence alone renders the prosecution case unreliable if evidence is trustworthy.
-
Gurjant Singh vs State of Hry
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 100, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving possession of narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act, substantial compliance with statutory procedural requirements (such as recording secret information, maintaining chain of custody, and joining respectables during search) is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Strict compliance should not be insisted upon when immediate action is necessary to prevent the accused's escape or when procedural provisions are directory rather than mandatory in nature. The evidence of official witnesses, when found to be reliable and trustworthy after careful scrutiny, can sustain a conviction even without corroboration from independent witnesses who have been won over by the accused. Material obtained through procedurally irregular searches is not inadmissible in evidence and can be acted upon to record a conviction, provided the chain of custody is maintained and the integrity of the evidence is established through other corroborating evidence.
On this section: Requires joining of two respectables of the locality during search and seizure. The court held that this provision is directory in nature and non-compliance affects the weight of evidence but does not invalidate the search and recovery.
-
State of Haryana vs Shakir @ Shahrukh, S/o- Jamil
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 100, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of official police witnesses without any independent corroborating witnesses, the evidence must be subjected to close scrutiny. The prosecution must establish both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) of the accused, along with the causal connection between the alleged criminal acts and the accused person. Mere recovery of contraband articles does not establish the accused's involvement unless the prosecution proves the accused's direct participation in the offence. Procedural compliance, particularly the mandatory requirement to associate independent witnesses during recovery under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is essential for the credibility of the prosecution case. In the absence of such compliance and independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
On this section: Mandatory requirement to associate independent public witnesses during recovery of seized articles; court found this provision was flouted by prosecution
-
Haryana Police vs Pankaj
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 100, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Failure to join independent witnesses during a recovery from a busy public place, coupled with the non-production of the case property in court, creates a reasonable doubt that entitles the accused to acquittal.
On this section: Procedure for search requiring independent witnesses.
-
Santosh Mishra vs State Govt. of N.c.t. of Delhi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 100, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In bail applications under Section 439 CrPC involving serious drug trafficking charges with substantial recovery of narcotic drugs, procedural defects in search and notice procedures cannot be appreciated at the bail stage but must be examined during trial after recording of prosecution evidence. The court should not prejudge procedural compliance issues at bail stage. The gravity of charges and quantum of recovery are material considerations in bail decisions, and procedural irregularities do not automatically entitle an accused to bail without showing prejudice. The trial court should be directed to expedite proceedings to ensure compliance with constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial.
On this section: Requirement for independent witnesses during search; petitioner argued this was mandatory requirement
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that similarly situated co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50858 of 2024. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. 6. On perusal of the report sent by learned Court below, it appears that charge has been framed on 27.11.2024 and out of ten prosecution witnesses, no any …
-
… The petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8571 of 2024. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to …
-
… Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of arms and the same does not belong to him. The petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2024 and has got two criminal antecedents. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated coaccused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2098 of 2025. 5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for …
Questions about Section 103
What have the courts held on Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Sarju @ Ramu vs State of U. P (07 Aug 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 100, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provisions regarding search procedures applicable to NDPS Act cases. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 103, section 103 BNSS, section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 103(1) and bnss 103(4). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sarju @ Ramu vs State of U. P (07 Aug 2009).
What should I read with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 222 (Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance), section 44 (Search of place entered by person sought to be arrested), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 100 (Persons in charge of closed place to allow search), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 103, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.